This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dvārakā article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added a clean-up tag today as although this article contains a lot of information I feel it needs to be laid-out and written more clearly, as per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
we should transcribe the mane as Dvaraka throughout, in keeping with our usual convention of rendering Sanskrit names. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no article for this entry
and lking to
Dwaraka creates an indirect link back to the same Dab, which must not occur.
--
Jerzy•
t
03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"On analysis and dating of the samples collected it was found that the samples were about 9000 years old, about the same time when the Ice Age ended. Some of the artifacts discovered dated as far back as 32,000 years." Is it oficial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.43.21.4 ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
A German-American philologist and a Professor of Sanskrit
I wanted to write:
Michael Witzel who is A Philologist and a professor Of Sanskrit argues that the "ruins" are either natural rock formations or the result of faulty remote sensing equipment and that the "artifacts" recovered are either geofacts or foreign objects introduced to the site by the very strong tidal currents in the Gulf of Cambay. The side scan sonar equipment used to image the bottom of the Gulf may have been faulty, and the claimed supporting evidence is purely circumstantial.
Why was it rejected? I got his title from his own page so what the issue with the statement above!
ALSO Michael Witzel is Note as Controversial Figure, which is why i claim this before and you removed it for some strange reason?
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED June 5, 1996
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0 During the 1994-95 school year, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies was mired in turmoil.
"A former lecturer had filed suit against three professors and the dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for unspecified damages, students had met to discuss a litany of complaints and the chair of the department had threatened to sue one of the students in retaliation for her role in the meeting.
The department chair, Wales Professor of Sanskrit Michael E.J. Witzel, was at the heart of the controversy." [1] 82.38.160.13 ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)VEDA
References
I added the refference to the Puranas (Dvaraka is not mentioned in Mahabharata alone) and the part of Harivamsa Purana to the text. In my opinion an important information about the city.-- 87.152.245.242 ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have enhanced this part and changed it's position in the text, which in my opinion fits better for an Encyclopedia. The city should in my opinion be described before telling historical events.-- 87.178.218.111 ( talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There are many additional details of the city told in the Mahabharata. Therefore I think, it would be good, to tell this details of the city before the histgorical events.-- 87.178.218.111 ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not cut and paste the Bhagavad-gītā onto this page. Ogress smash! 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not posting "scripture" onto Wikipedia as fact, I am simply providing a description of Dvaraka as it appears in the Mahabharata. I am not claiming that it is fact or non-fact, but the "fact" does remain, that there is indeed a section on this page devoted to providing a description of Dvaraka that is almost entirely lacking in said description. Therefore, I added that necessary description, nothing more, nothing less. I provided a link/reference to the description as well, I didn't just take it out of thin air. If this wants to refer to itself as an encyclopedia, than it needs to be as accurate and detailed as possible. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages out there with similar content and they are not constantly taken down for little to no reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenevolentSage ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@ IndianEditor::
And once again, Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat) is not where Dwarka is located: it is completely different from the Gulf of Kutch. So, please don't add descriptions of archaeological findings in Gulf of Cambay to this article. utcursch | talk 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:No doubt the source says 1500 BC.
But at the same time S.A Rao says "Mudras" were dated back to 1600 BC. Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: You didn't reply buddy... Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Ok Cool Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Ok I am cool with that but what about renaming the page Iamgod12345 ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The name of page is something which one cannot find on Google easily. Like this [1] So I recommend to change name of page from Dvārakā to Dvarka Iamgod12345 ( talk) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dvārakā article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added a clean-up tag today as although this article contains a lot of information I feel it needs to be laid-out and written more clearly, as per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
we should transcribe the mane as Dvaraka throughout, in keeping with our usual convention of rendering Sanskrit names. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no article for this entry
and lking to
Dwaraka creates an indirect link back to the same Dab, which must not occur.
--
Jerzy•
t
03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"On analysis and dating of the samples collected it was found that the samples were about 9000 years old, about the same time when the Ice Age ended. Some of the artifacts discovered dated as far back as 32,000 years." Is it oficial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.43.21.4 ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
A German-American philologist and a Professor of Sanskrit
I wanted to write:
Michael Witzel who is A Philologist and a professor Of Sanskrit argues that the "ruins" are either natural rock formations or the result of faulty remote sensing equipment and that the "artifacts" recovered are either geofacts or foreign objects introduced to the site by the very strong tidal currents in the Gulf of Cambay. The side scan sonar equipment used to image the bottom of the Gulf may have been faulty, and the claimed supporting evidence is purely circumstantial.
Why was it rejected? I got his title from his own page so what the issue with the statement above!
ALSO Michael Witzel is Note as Controversial Figure, which is why i claim this before and you removed it for some strange reason?
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED June 5, 1996
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 0 During the 1994-95 school year, the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies was mired in turmoil.
"A former lecturer had filed suit against three professors and the dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for unspecified damages, students had met to discuss a litany of complaints and the chair of the department had threatened to sue one of the students in retaliation for her role in the meeting.
The department chair, Wales Professor of Sanskrit Michael E.J. Witzel, was at the heart of the controversy." [1] 82.38.160.13 ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)VEDA
References
I added the refference to the Puranas (Dvaraka is not mentioned in Mahabharata alone) and the part of Harivamsa Purana to the text. In my opinion an important information about the city.-- 87.152.245.242 ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have enhanced this part and changed it's position in the text, which in my opinion fits better for an Encyclopedia. The city should in my opinion be described before telling historical events.-- 87.178.218.111 ( talk) 17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There are many additional details of the city told in the Mahabharata. Therefore I think, it would be good, to tell this details of the city before the histgorical events.-- 87.178.218.111 ( talk) 18:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not cut and paste the Bhagavad-gītā onto this page. Ogress smash! 21:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not posting "scripture" onto Wikipedia as fact, I am simply providing a description of Dvaraka as it appears in the Mahabharata. I am not claiming that it is fact or non-fact, but the "fact" does remain, that there is indeed a section on this page devoted to providing a description of Dvaraka that is almost entirely lacking in said description. Therefore, I added that necessary description, nothing more, nothing less. I provided a link/reference to the description as well, I didn't just take it out of thin air. If this wants to refer to itself as an encyclopedia, than it needs to be as accurate and detailed as possible. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages out there with similar content and they are not constantly taken down for little to no reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenevolentSage ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@ IndianEditor::
And once again, Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat) is not where Dwarka is located: it is completely different from the Gulf of Kutch. So, please don't add descriptions of archaeological findings in Gulf of Cambay to this article. utcursch | talk 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller:No doubt the source says 1500 BC.
But at the same time S.A Rao says "Mudras" were dated back to 1600 BC. Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: You didn't reply buddy... Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Ok Cool Iamgod12345 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller: Ok I am cool with that but what about renaming the page Iamgod12345 ( talk) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The name of page is something which one cannot find on Google easily. Like this [1] So I recommend to change name of page from Dvārakā to Dvarka Iamgod12345 ( talk) 03:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)